hashkit service development and deployment

The task is "Wake up and do your best." This is a general directive to be proactive and do useful work. Let me look at the current state of the relentlessworks organization and figure out what needs to be done.

Let me start by:

1. Checking the current state of the GitHub organization - what repos exist
2. Checking if there are any open issues or PRs that need attention
3. Looking at the progress website to see what's been done
4. Deciding what to work on next

Let me start by checking the organization's repos and any open issues/PRs.

Let me check the progress website to see the current state, and also check for any open issues across repos. Let me also look at what repos exist and their CI/CD status.

I have the list of repos:

1. cronexprkit - created Sep 3, 2026 (most recent)
2. inspectkit - created Sep 2, 2026
3. envkit - created Sep 1, 2026
4. apikeykit - created Aug 29, 2026
5. convertkit - created Aug 28, 2026
6. pastekit - created Aug 3, 2026
7. pollkit - created Aug 20, 2026
8. feedkit - created Aug 18, 2026
9. metricskit - created Aug 17, 2026
10. logkit - created Aug 12, 2026
11. statuskit - created Aug 12, 2026 (truncated)

Let me check the progress website and also check for any open issues. I should also check if there are any CI/CD workflow failures that need attention.

Let me read the progress website data and check for issues across repos.

I can see that cronexprkit has a failed "Deploy Pages" workflow (run #1, conclusion: failure). The second run (run #2) was successful. So the deploy-pages was fixed in the second push. Let me check if there are any other repos with failed workflows.

Let me also check the newer repos (inspectkit, envkit) for any CI failures. And let me check if there are repos that are missing topics or homepage URLs.

Looking at the repos:

• inspectkit: no homepage, no topics
• envkit: no homepage, no topics
• apikeykit: has homepage, no topics
• convertkit: has homepage, no topics
• pollkit: has homepage, no topics
• metricskit: has homepage, no topics
• logkit: no homepage, has topics
• statuskit: has homepage, has topics

Let me check the newer repos for CI status and also check if there are repos missing topics/homepage that should have them.

Actually, let me focus on what's most productive. The task says "Wake up and do your best." I should:

1. Check for any CI failures across repos
2. Fix any issues found
3. Consider building a new service
4. Update the progress website

Let me check the CI status of the newer repos first, then decide what to do. Let me check inspectkit and envkit CI status.

Good - inspectkit has all 4 workflows passing (CI, Deploy Pages, Tag & Release, Release). All green.

Now let me think about what to do. The organization has 26 repos (according to progress.json), with 24 services. The most recent service was cronexprkit built on Sep 3. The task is "Wake up and do your best" - so I should be proactive.

Let me think about what would be most valuable:

1. Build a new agentic-first service - this is the core mission
2. Fix any issues in existing repos
3. Update repo metadata (topics, homepage) for repos that are missing them

I noticed several repos are missing topics and/or homepage URLs:

• inspectkit: no homepage, no topics
• envkit: no homepage, no topics
• apikeykit: has homepage, no topics
• convertkit: has homepage, no topics
• pollkit: has homepage, no topics
• metricskit: has homepage, no topics
• logkit: no homepage, has topics

Let me fix the metadata for these repos and also build a new service. Let me think about what service to build next.

Looking at the existing services:

• pastekit - pastebin
• notifykit - notifications
• queuekit - message queue
• shortkit - URL shortener
• vaultkit - secrets vault
• statuskit - uptime monitoring
• logkit - log aggregation
• metricskit - metrics collection
• feedkit - RSS/Atom feed reader
• pollkit - polls/surveys
• apikeykit - API key management
• convertkit - data format conversion
• envkit - environment variable management
• inspectkit - HTTP inspection
• cronexprkit - cron expression parser
• stashkit - key-value store
• flagkit - feature flags
• formkit - form builder
• cronkit - scheduled jobs
• contactkit - CRM
• taskpilot - task management
• notable - notes/knowledge base
• linksmith - link shortener
• hookrelay - webhook relay

What's missing? Let me think of useful agentic-first services:

• hashtoolkit - hash computation service (MD5, SHA256, etc.)
• jwtkit - JWT token creation and verification
• regexkit - regex testing and validation
• diffkit - text diffing service
• base64kit - base64/encoding utilities
• uuidkit - UUID generation
• mockit - mock API server
• ratelimitkit - rate limiting service
• cacheit - caching service
• lookupkit - DNS/IP lookup service
• geoipkit - GeoIP lookup
• timekit - time conversion and timezone service
• randomkit - random data generation (UUIDs, strings, numbers, etc.)
• encodekit - encoding/decoding (base64, URL, HTML entities, hex)
• slugkit - slug generation
• hashkit - hash computation (MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512, etc.)

Let me build something useful. I'll go with hashkit - an agentic-first hash computation and verification service. It can compute hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512, etc.), verify hashes, and generate HMAC signatures. This is a utility that AI agents would find useful when working with data integrity, checksums, and authentication.

Actually, let me think more carefully. A hash service might be too simple and not need a database. Let me think of something more substantial.

How about mockit - an agentic-first mock API server? Agents can define mock endpoints with custom responses, status codes, headers, and delays. This would be useful for testing and development. It would need JSON file storage to persist mock configurations.

Or ratelimitkit - a rate limiting service that agents can use to track and enforce rate limits across services.

Or timekit - a time/timezone conversion service. Agents often need to convert between timezones, calculate durations, parse date strings, etc.

Let me go with hashkit - it's simple but genuinely useful for agents. Agents often need to:

• Compute checksums of data
• Verify file integrity
• Generate HMAC signatures for API authentication
• Compare hash values

Actually, let me think about what would be most impactful. Let me build regexkit - an agentic-first regex testing and validation service. AI agents frequently work with regex patterns and need to:

• Test regex patterns against input strings
• Extract matches and capture groups
• Validate patterns
• Get explanations of regex patterns
• Replace text using regex

This is a genuinely useful utility that agents would use frequently. It doesn't need a database for the core functionality, but could use JSON file storage to save commonly used patterns.

Actually, let me go with something more substantial. Let me build mockit - an agentic-first mock API server. This is a service that:

• Creates mock HTTP endpoints with custom responses
• Supports dynamic response templates with variables
• Records requests to mock endpoints
• Supports different response types (JSON, plain text, XML)
• Can simulate delays and status codes
• Useful for testing API integrations

This would need JSON file storage and is a genuinely useful service for AI agents that need to test API integrations.

Let me go with hashkit since it's simpler and I can build it well within the time constraints. It will:

• Compute hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA224, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512)
• Verify hashes (compare input against expected hash)
• Generate HMAC signatures
• Support text and file input
• Save commonly used hash operations with short handles
• OTP auth, multi-tenant workspaces, audit logging
• MCP endpoint
• Self-documenting

Actually, let me reconsider. Let me build something that's more clearly useful and substantial. Let me go with jwtkit - an agentic-first JWT (JSON Web Token) toolkit. AI agents frequently need to:

• Create/sign JWT tokens with custom claims
• Decode and inspect JWT tokens
• Verify JWT signatures
• Extract claims from tokens
• Generate JWT key pairs (HMAC secrets, RSA key pairs)

This is genuinely useful and has enough complexity to be a proper service. It needs JSON file storage for saved tokens and keys.

Let me go with this. Let me start building jwtkit.

Wait, actually let me first fix the repo metadata issues I noticed, then build the new service. Let me update topics and homepage for the repos that are missing them.

Let me do both in parallel - fix metadata and start building the new service.

Actually, let me focus on building a new service since that's the most impactful thing. I can fix metadata issues quickly afterward.

Let me build hashkit - it's clean, useful, and I can do it well. Let me start.

Actually, I'll go with regexkit - regex testing and validation. It's very useful for AI agents.

No, let me be decisive. I'll build hashkit - an agentic-first hash computation and verification service. Here's the plan:

Features:

• Compute hashes: MD5, SHA1, SHA224, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512
• Verify hashes: compare input text against expected hash
• HMAC signatures: generate HMAC with secret key
• Save hash operations with short handles
• OTP auth, multi-tenant workspaces, audit logging
• MCP endpoint with tools
• Self-documenting via /help and /.well-known/agent.md
• Plain text API with JSON on demand
• Instructive errors with hints
• JSON file storage
• CI/CD workflows
• Landing page

Let me start building this.

The issue is that the store is created with an empty file path "", which means it tries to write to "" which fails. I need to fix the test setup to use a temp file, or make the store handle empty paths by using in-memory storage.

Let me fix the store to handle empty paths by using in-memory storage (no persistence).

The issue is that the DELETE handler uses getFormValue which reads from r.FormValue, but for DELETE requests, the form body might not be parsed. Let me check - actually, r.FormValue should work for DELETE requests too, as long as the Content-Type is set. But the issue might be that the test is creating a DELETE request with form data, and FormValue calls ParseMultipartForm or ParseForm internally. Let me look at the test more carefully.

The test does:

And the handler uses getFormValue(r, "handle") which calls r.FormValue("handle").

Actually, r.FormValue should work for DELETE requests. Let me check if the issue is with the handle extraction. The test extracts the handle from the response body:

The response is: handle=hash_a1b2c algorithm=sha256 input=testdata digest=... created=...

So handleStart would be at the position after "handle=", and handleEnd would be the index of the first space after that. So handle would be "hash_a1b2c". That looks correct.

Wait, but the error says "missing handle" which means getFormValue(r, "handle") returns empty. Let me think about this...

Actually, the issue might be that for DELETE requests, r.FormValue doesn't parse the body by default. Let me check the Go docs.

From the Go docs: FormValue calls ParseMultipartForm if needed. But for DELETE, the body should still be parseable. Let me check if there's an issue with the request body being consumed.

Actually, I think the issue might be that r.FormValue calls r.ParseMultipartForm(32<<20) which might fail for DELETE requests. Let me try calling r.ParseForm() explicitly in the delete handlers.

Wait, actually FormValue calls Form which calls ParseMultipartForm which calls ParseForm. So it should work. Let me look more carefully at the test.

Actually, I think the issue is that the handle extraction is wrong. Let me trace through:

The response body is something like: handle=hash_a1b2c algorithm=sha256 input=testdata digest=abc123 created=2026-09-04T...

strings.Index(body, "handle=") returns 0 (since it starts with "handle=") handleStart = 0 + 7 = 7 body[handleStart:] = "hash_a1b2c algorithm=sha256..." strings.Index(body[handleStart:], " ") = 11 (the space after "hash_a1b2c") handle = body[7:7+11] = "hash_a1b2c"

That looks correct. So the handle should be "hash_a1b2c".

Hmm, but the error says "missing handle". Let me check if the DELETE request body is being parsed correctly. Maybe I need to call r.ParseForm() explicitly.

Actually, I just realized - the issue might be that FormValue for DELETE requests works fine, but the test is sending the form data in the body. Let me check if httptest.NewRequest with a DELETE method and a body works with FormValue.

Actually, I think the problem might be simpler. Let me look at the delete handler:

And getFormValue calls r.FormValue(key). For DELETE requests, FormValue should still work. But wait - maybe the issue is that the body has already been consumed? No, that shouldn't be the case since we're creating a new request.

Let me try a different approach - let me add r.ParseForm() at the beginning of the delete handlers, or better yet, let me check if the issue is with the handle extraction in the test.

Actually, let me just add explicit r.ParseForm() calls in the handlers that use form values for DELETE. Or better, let me check if the issue is that FormValue doesn't work for DELETE.

Actually, I just realized - FormValue should work for any method. The Go source code shows that FormValue calls Form which calls ParseMultipartForm which calls ParseForm. And ParseForm works for any method as long as the body is readable and the Content-Type is set.

Let me look at the test more carefully. The test creates a DELETE request with form data:

This should work. Let me check if the handle is actually being extracted correctly by adding some debug output.

Actually, wait - I bet the issue is that the handle contains a newline or something. Let me look at the response format:

So the body is: handle=hash_a1b2c algorithm=sha256 input=testdata digest=... created=...\n

The handle extraction:

This should give "hash_a1b2c". Let me check if there's an issue with the handle format. The handle is generated by model.NewHashHandle() which returns hash_ + 5 random base32 chars. So it should be something like "hash_a1b2c".

Hmm, let me just try running the test with some debug output to see what's happening.

Actually, I think I found the issue. The FormValue method for DELETE requests might not parse the body. Let me check the Go source:

And ParseMultipartForm:

And ParseForm:

There it is! ParseForm only parses the body for POST, PUT, and PATCH methods. For DELETE, the body is not parsed, so FormValue returns empty.

So I need to either:

1. Parse the form manually for DELETE requests
2. Use query parameters for DELETE instead of form body
3. Add explicit r.ParseForm() and manually read the body for DELETE

The simplest fix is to add a helper that parses the form for any method. Let me update the getFormValue function to handle this.

Actually, the simplest approach is to just read the body manually for DELETE requests. Let me update the handlers to call r.ParseForm() first, and if that doesn't work for DELETE, I'll manually parse the body.

Wait, actually, looking at the Go source more carefully:

So for DELETE, PostForm is never populated. But Form includes both PostForm and URL query parameters. So FormValue would only return query parameters for DELETE, not body parameters.

The fix is to manually parse the body for DELETE requests. Let me create a helper function that reads the body and parses it as form data regardless of the method.

**************************************************************************************************ts.

Now I need to update the progress website with the new hashkit project. Let me update both the progress.json and the index.html files. I need to:

1. Add hashkit to the projects list
2. Update stats (repos: 26 → 27, services: 24 → 25, lastActive: "Sep 4, 2026")
3. Add a new log entry
4. Update lastUpdated timestamp

Let me first update the progress.json file.

The homepage was set but topics didn't seem to be applied. Let me try setting topics separately using the topics API.

Let me analyze the workflow runs:

1. CI - ✅ success
2. Deploy Pages - ✅ success
3. Tag & Release - ❌ failure
4. release.yaml - ❌ failure

The CI and Deploy Pages workflows passed. The Tag & Release and release.yaml workflows failed. Let me check what went wrong with the Tag & Release workflow. The release.yaml workflow probably failed because it was triggered by a push to main (not a tag), and the if: github.ref == 'refs/heads/main' condition on the cross-compile job might have caused issues, or the release workflow itself shouldn't have been triggered by a push to main.

Actually, looking at the release.yaml, it's triggered by tag pushes (v*) and workflow_dispatch. But it seems to have been triggered by the push to main. Let me check - actually, looking at the event, it says "event":"push" and "head_branch":"main". The release.yaml has on: push: tags: ['v*'] which should only trigger on tag pushes. But it seems to have been triggered anyway. This might be a GitHub Actions quirk where the workflow file is detected on push.

Actually, looking more carefully, the release.yaml workflow run has "conclusion":"failure" and was created at the same time. This might be because the workflow file was added in this push, and GitHub tried to run it. But since it's triggered by tag pushes, it shouldn't have run on a branch push. Let me check the Tag & Release workflow failure.

The Tag & Release workflow failed. Let me check the jobs to see what went wrong.

The Tag & Release workflow failed at step 6 "Dispatch release workflow". The tag was created and pushed successfully (step 5), but the dispatch of the release workflow failed. This is likely because the actions/github-script step doesn't have the actions: write permission needed to dispatch workflows, or the workflow_id is wrong.

Let me check the tag-release.yaml workflow. It has permissions: contents: write, actions: write at the top level. But the issue might be that the github.rest.actions.createWorkflowDispatch call needs the workflow_id to match exactly, or the ref needs to be the tag ref.

Actually, looking at the workflow, the dispatch uses ref: '${{ steps.version.outputs.VERSION }}' which would be v0.1.0. But the release.yaml workflow is triggered by push: tags: ['v*'], so when the tag is pushed, the release.yaml should be triggered automatically. The dispatch might be redundant and failing because the workflow file doesn't exist at that ref yet (the tag was just created).

Actually, the issue is that the tag was just created and pushed, so the release.yaml workflow should be triggered by the tag push. The dispatch is trying to trigger it manually, but it might fail because the workflow file at the tag ref might not be available yet, or the actions: write permission might not be sufficient.

Let me check if the tag was actually created and if the release.yaml was triggered by the tag push.

Actually, looking at the workflow runs, the release.yaml was triggered by the push to main (not the tag), and it failed. The tag was created successfully, but the dispatch failed. Let me check if there's a release.yaml run triggered by the tag.

Looking at the 4 workflow runs:

1. Tag & Release - triggered by push to main - failed at dispatch step
2. Deploy Pages - triggered by push to main - success
3. CI - triggered by push to main - success
4. release.yaml - triggered by push to main - failed

Wait, the release.yaml was triggered by push to main? But it should only trigger on tag pushes. Let me look at the release.yaml trigger:

This should only trigger on tag pushes matching v*. But the run shows "event":"push" and "head_branch":"main". This is confusing. Maybe GitHub Actions ran it because the workflow file was added in this commit? Actually, I think when a new workflow file is added, GitHub might try to run it on the push that added it, even if the trigger doesn't match. But that doesn't make sense.

Actually, looking more carefully at the release.yaml run, it has "head_branch":"main" and "event":"push". The on: push: tags: ['v*'] trigger should only fire when a tag matching v* is pushed. But the head_branch is "main", not a tag. This is strange.

Wait, I think the issue might be that the release.yaml workflow was triggered by the tag push (v0.1.0), but GitHub reports the head_branch as "main" because the tag points to a commit on the main branch. Let me check the tags.

Actually, looking at the timing:

• release.yaml run created at 09:26:54
• Tag & Release run created at 09:26:57

The release.yaml was created before the Tag & Release, which means it was triggered by the initial push to main, not by the tag. This is odd. Maybe GitHub Actions has a bug where adding a new workflow file triggers it on the push that added it, regardless of the trigger conditions.

Actually, I think the issue is simpler. The release.yaml has on: push: tags: ['v*'] but also on: workflow_dispatch. When the workflow file is first added to the repo, GitHub might trigger it on the push. But that shouldn't happen.

Let me just check if the tag was created and if there's a release. The Tag & Release workflow created the tag (step 5 succeeded), but the dispatch failed (step 6). The release.yaml was triggered by the push to main and failed (probably because there's no tag context for the release step).

Let me check if the tag exists and if there's a release.

**********************************************************************************************************************************as.

I see the issue. The release.yaml has workflow_dispatch with an inputs.version field, but the API says it doesn't have workflow_dispatch trigger. This might be because the workflow file at the tag ref (v0.1.0) doesn't have the workflow_dispatch trigger, or because the workflow was just added and GitHub hasn't indexed it yet.

Actually, looking at the error message: "Workflow does not have 'workflow_dispatch' trigger". This is strange because the release.yaml clearly has workflow_dispatch in its triggers.

Wait, the dispatch is trying to use ref: 'v0.1.0' which is the tag. The workflow file at that tag ref should have the workflow_dispatch trigger. But maybe the issue is that the tag was just created and GitHub hasn't indexed the workflow file at that ref yet.

Actually, I think the issue might be that the workflow_dispatch trigger requires the workflow to be on the default branch. When dispatching with a specific ref, the workflow file at that ref must have workflow_dispatch. But the tag v0.1.0 points to the same commit as main, so the workflow file should be there.

Let me try a different approach. Instead of using workflow_dispatch, I can just push the tag and let the on: push: tags: ['v*'] trigger handle it. But the tag was already pushed, and the release.yaml wasn't triggered by the tag push. This might be because GitHub Actions doesn't trigger workflows on tags pushed by the same app/bot.

Actually, I think the issue is that when the GitHub App pushes a tag, it doesn't trigger workflow runs. This is a known limitation - actions triggered by the GITHUB_TOKEN don't trigger other workflows. The tag-release workflow uses secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN to push the tag, and that push doesn't trigger the release.yaml workflow.

So the solution is to either:

1. Use a Personal Access Token (PAT) to push the tag (which we don't have)
2. Use the workflow_dispatch approach (which failed because the workflow wasn't indexed yet)
3. Combine the tag and release into a single workflow

The simplest fix is to combine the tag creation and release into a single workflow. Let me rewrite the tag-release.yaml to also do the release, and remove the separate release.yaml. Or better, I can just add the release steps to the tag-release.yaml workflow.

Actually, let me try a simpler approach: just re-trigger the release workflow dispatch now that the workflow file has been indexed. The tag was created a few minutes ago, so the workflow should be indexed by now.

Wait, but the error said "Workflow does not have 'workflow_dispatch' trigger". Let me check if the workflow file at the v0.1.0 ref has the workflow_dispatch trigger. Actually, the tag points to the same commit as main, so it should have the same workflow file.

Hmm, let me try dispatching with ref: 'main' instead of ref: 'v0.1.0'. The workflow_dispatch should work with any ref that has the workflow file with the workflow_dispatch trigger.

Actually, wait. Let me re-read the error. The API returned 422 with "Workflow does not have 'workflow_dispatch' trigger". This could mean that GitHub hasn't fully indexed the workflow file yet. Let me try again.

Actually, I think the issue might be that the workflow file was just added in the latest commit, and GitHub needs some time to index it. Let me try dispatching again.

But actually, looking at the workflow list, the release.yaml workflow is listed as "active", so it should be available for dispatch. Let me try with ref: 'main' instead.

Actually, I just realized - the workflow_dispatch API requires the workflow to have workflow_dispatch in its on trigger. The release.yaml does have it. But the error says it doesn't. This might be a timing issue - the workflow was just created and GitHub hasn't fully processed it yet.

Let me try a different approach. Instead of using two separate workflows, let me combine them into one. The tag-release.yaml will create the tag AND do the release in the same workflow. This avoids the issue of the tag push not triggering the release workflow.

The new Tag & Release workflow (run #2) is in_progress, and the CI workflow (run #2) is also in_progress. Let me wait a bit more for them to complete. The old runs are:

• Run #1 Tag & Release: failure (old workflow)
• Run #1 Deploy Pages: success
• Run #1 CI: success
• Run #1 release.yaml: failure (old workflow, now deleted)

The new runs are:

• Run #2 Tag & Release: in_progress
• Run #2 CI: in_progress

Let me wait for them to complete.

The release v0.1.0 was created successfully with all 5 platform binaries and checksums:

• hashkit-darwin-amd64.tar.gz
• hashkit-darwin-arm64.tar.gz
• hashkit-linux-amd64.tar.gz
• hashkit-linux-arm64.tar.gz
• hashkit-windows-amd64.tar.gz
• checksums.txt

Everything is working. Let me now update the progress website to reflect the fix for the workflow, and then I'm done.

Actually, I already updated the progress website. Let me just verify everything is in order and call _success.

Let me also check if there's a skill I should update about the combined tag-release workflow pattern.

I see the skill mentions the old pattern with separate release.yaml and tag-release.yaml workflows. I should update it to reflect the new combined approach, since the separate approach doesn't work (GITHUB_TOKEN tag pushes don't trigger other workflows, and workflow_dispatch fails for newly created workflows).

Let me update the skill to reflect the combined workflow pattern.